Advertisement

Synthese

, 172:269 | Cite as

An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation

  • Ronald N. Giere
Article

Abstract

I argue for an intentional conception of representation in science that requires bringing scientific agents and their intentions into the picture. So the formula is: Agents (1) intend; (2) to use model, M; (3) to represent a part of the world, W; (4) for some purpose, P. This conception legitimates using similarity as the basic relationship between models and the world. Moreover, since just about anything can be used to represent anything else, there can be no unified ontology of models. This whole approach is further supported by a brief exposition of some recent work in cognitive, or usage-based, linguistics. Finally, with all the above as background, I criticize the recently much discussed idea that claims involving scientific models are really fictions.

Keywords

Agents Cognitive linguistics Fictions Intentions Models Scientific representation 

References

  1. Cartwright N.D. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Chakravartty, A. (2009). Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9502-3.
  3. Contessa, G. (2009). Scientific models as fictional objects. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9503-2.
  4. Dennett D.C. (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Fine A. (1993) Fictionalism. Midwest studies in philosophy 18: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giere R.N. (1988) Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Giere R.N. (1994) The cognitive structure of scientific theories. Philosophy of Science 61: 276–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Giere R.N. (2006) Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Grice H.P. (1969) Utterer’s meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review 66: 377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakoff G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan M.S., Morrison M. (eds) (1999) Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Popper K.R. (1978) Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectia 32: 339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scheffler I. (1963) The anatomy of inquiry: Philosophical studies in the theory of science. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith E.E., Medin D.L. (1981) Categories and concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Suárez M. (2003) Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17: 225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Suárez M. (2004) An inferential conception of scientific representation, Philosophy of Science 71: 767–779Google Scholar
  18. Suárez M. (Eds.) (2009) Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Suppes P. (1969) Studies in the methodology and foundations of science: Selected papers from 1951 to 1969. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Teller, P. (2008a). Of course idealizations are incommensurable! In L. Soler, H. Sankey, & P. Hoyningen-Huene (Eds.), Rethinking scientific change and theory comparison: Stabilities, ruptures, incommensurabilities? Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Teller, P. (2008b). Representation in science. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Thomson-Jones, M. (2009). Missing systems and the face value practice. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9507-y.
  23. Tomasello M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Vaihinger, H. (1935). The philosophy of ‘As If’: A system of the theoretical, practical and religious fictions of mankind (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  25. van Frassen, B. C. (2000). The theory of tragedy and of science: Does nature have a narrative structure. In Sfendoni-Mendou (eds), Aristotle and contemporary science (Vol. 1). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Walton K.L. (1990) Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations